ue_editor_open

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses that the tool waits for bridge response, that default wait is short due to client timeout, and that if bridge not ready, the response indicates so. Mentions shader compilation and potential modal blockage due to skip_module_check. However, no annotations provided, and the description could be more explicit about side effects (e.g., editor launch) but is still informative.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the main purpose. The following paragraph and Args list are well-organized, though slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, but the entire text could be slightly more concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Lacks explicit return value details (no output schema), but the description implies the tool returns status about bridge readiness and refers to ue_editor_status for detailed polling. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, it provides good contextual information, but missing exact response structure for completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Parameter descriptions in the Args section add significant meaning beyond the schema (which only has titles and defaults). Each parameter is explained: uproject (path), engine_version (force version), wait_seconds (with caveats), extra_args (command-line args), engine_root (engine path), skip_module_check (warning about modal). With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states 'Apre un progetto nell'editor e attende che il bridge risponda' which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ue_editor_status (polling for bridge_ready) and ue_editor_close.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use polling (ue_editor_status) instead of increasing wait_seconds because of client timeout. Advises against raising wait_seconds beyond client timeout, especially on first launch with shader compilation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.